False Teacher – Chuck Missler’s False Gospel Given On Coast to Coast AM

Chuck Missler last night was on Coast to Coast AM. He appeared to be a loving saved Christian, but then I noticed at one point where he was using Coast to Coast to preach, gave a typical Arminian gospel (which is a misleading one that leads people to Hell and makes them “twice a child of Hell as … you” to quote Jesus), which is “accept that Jesus died on a the cross for you” MINUS ASKING GOD TO FORGIVE YOU. As usual, Christian-hater and fundamentalist-hater George Noory, who hates to listen to Christian preaching, and who knows that most of his audience does too (and is successful because he twists, avoids, and marginalizes it, like Chuck Missler does), stopped his Christian guest short (Chuck) when Chuck was preach his version of the gospel. It is possible that Chuck was going to say after saying that you must accept the lord’s death, that you must also ask him for forgiveness, BUT Chuck had two hours to make that point and was not shy to take advantage of the show, and it’s a crucial part of the gospel, yet Chuck did not mention it. This is how Arminians are. Why? It’s because being that they believe that they have goodness in them, they have pride, pride that they can have eternal peace apart from God’s goodness produced by this goodness in them, so then, they believe that they don’t truly need God’s forgiveness for eternal peace or perfect peace, and they also believe in their own goodness so much, they can’t accept that God would hate anyone. They also no doubt to me believe that they don’t need God’s forgiveness, because, “God doesn’t hate anyone.” No doubt to me they also believe that God wouldn’t hate anyone, because he already took his anger out on Jesus (which if they believe, is truly twisted: because they are saying that God hated his own perfect Son, but not those who refuse to ask God to forgive them for disobeying him/being imperfect) or on the sins that Jesus suffered for (which would be nonsensical, because sins don’t feel pain, they are actions, not living, or “objects of wrath.”) They are also evil in that they can’t accept that God would even hate a person if they weren’t good. So for all those reasons, is why they stop short at “Jesus shed his blood on a cross for your sins” and some perhaps, won’t even mention that Jesus suffered, or will avoid it, because it’s “distasteful” to them or they can’t believe that God would deliberately make anyone suffer, or that Jesus needed to. Or, they may believe that Jesus volunteered to suffer, and therefore was punishing himself, not God, but because they don’t think the suffering was important, but rather the blood-shedding on a cross and for many, baptism (which many Arminians obsess on as being necessary for eternal peace). They also believe that they have a completely free will, which can’t be influenced (which is an insane belief since it goes against common sense). They believe this because they hate God and want to be his equal, which is why they call themselves “sovereign”, and so they also believe that God can’t destine anyone, avoid talking about the parts of the Bible that mention destiny, or miscontrue it as “election” (that God elects whom he will save because he saw in the future that they would do good), and hypocritically, though they acknowledge that God is sovereign, refuse to accept that God has the same “rights” they they believe he gave to them, that he can hate whom he wants to, and decide what the future of his life will be (which includes how the lives of others will be).

These teachings of theirs are contradictory, because they admit that they have disobeyed God, admit that it’s so bad in God’s eyes, admit that they must repent, and that sin angers God so much, that he punished his only begotten son, a perfect son, Jesus, who was also God, severely, and so severely that figuratively, God says that, “he became sin.” But despite that, Arminians repeatedly fail to say that we must ask God to forgive us. This explanation I have given, makes it clear that Arminians are prideful and self-righteous (and again, they admit that they are good apart from God, or can be).

And because of they refuse to acknowledge that they are evil, that they need God’s goodness done in them to be good, and Christ’s good life up to his sacrifice as an appeasement to God for our lack of a good life and none sacrifice and inability to sacrifice ourselves without it being never-ending, they refuse to accept what is logical and reject common sense, and so are prone to all kinds of other errors, and life all those who are unsaved, often make hypocritical compromises, which leads to them further contradicting their main beliefs.

Chuck also believes that all the saved Christians will be raptured into Heaven so that they don’t have to go through the tribulation, taking this verse out of context:

“in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.”

The context is made clear by Paul:

1Co 15:35 But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?
1Co 15:36 Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow, you do not sow the body that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest).
1Co 15:38 And God gives it a body as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body.
1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh; but one kind of flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another of fish, and another of birds.
1Co 15:40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the glory of the heavenly is truly different, and that of the earthly different;
1Co 15:41 one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption;
1Co 15:43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
1Co 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.
1Co 15:46 But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven.
1Co 15:48 Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones.
1Co 15:49 And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
1Co 15:50 And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed;
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.

If you can’t tell what the context is: it’s the second resurrection. The first resurrection happens when Christ returns, destroys the anti-Christ, false prophet, beast, and hundreds of millions or billions of evil people, and reigns for a thousand years. That happens AFTER the tribulation, or completes it. Here is the reference in the Bible to this first resurrection: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.” – Revelation 20:6.

Chuck was also being a hypocrite when George Noory told him that he was concerned that Harold Camping’s false prophecies (or predictions or interpretations of the Bible about when the end of the world would be) would lead some to suicide, and Chuck said he was concerned that it would lead some to disbelieve the Bible and that atheists would use it to blaspheme God. Yet Chuck is doing little different by also giving a false timing for the rapture. What will all those Christians who go through the tribulation think, and how will they feel, without that stable goodness of God in them, when the anti-Christ bludgeons them and persecutes them, and Jesus doesn’t come to take them out of their worry or doesn’t affirm that their complacency is a good thing? Will the majority of them think, “Oh no, the Calvinists were right” or “The Baptists and Presbyterians were right?” No: they will “fall away” and “betray one another” and some or many will rationalize taking on the mark of the Beast because they can’t believe that God will have left them behind, and that as many of them believe I’m sure, the mark is really “a computer chip that is implanted into you”, and some will probably realize they were wrong, and out of greater hatred for God for not giving them there way, will take the mark in an attempt to harm God through such provocation. Some will probably disbelieve the Bible and commit suicide, seeing how bad the world gets or because of the severe persecution, and not having God in them to help to “not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.” (Matthew 10:28)

The Arminian’s Confusion Over The Will and Man’s Sovereignty

Many Christians and pseudo-Christians, like Mormons, are Arminians, or have Arminian-like beliefs. The Mormons no doubt have them because their founder, the narcissist sociopath Joseph Smith, knew of a major split between various Christians, that which was between those who believed in predestiny and those who believed that man was in control of his future and Joseph also believed that the U.S. Constitution, was divinely inspired, though it was really a creation of deists, perhaps influenced by what they learned from some Indian/Native American tradition or laws. The U.S. Constitution that mankind had “inalienable rights”. Inalienable means “Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” and repudiated in part, means, “reject as untrue”. And “right” in that context, means, “An abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition, nature or God.” And the Deists believed that mankind had the right to liberty and to pursue a life of happiness. The Bible does teach that you have the option to attempt to have liberty, which means, “freedom from servitude, confinement or oppression” and to try to be happy, and that it is natural to be happy over certain things, but it doesn’t teach that liberty and happiness itself are something you will have in life, though it seems that most people get to experience being happy at least one time in their life, the exception being maybe babies that are born severely deformed or incomplete, or people who are always in severe physical pain. A confused person, like a narcissist might think that liberty and happiness was guaranteed to him by God and also a person who resents God’s authority and control over them, and so it shouldn’t be a surprise such people would obsess over their “rights”, and even turn them into major religious teachings like Arminus (the founder of Arminiasm) and Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith’s cult has their own fancy phrase for the will, calling it “free agency” in an attempt to make themselves sound wise and to distinguish themselves from other cults and the Christians (and which is a term that leads to further confusion). Joseph Smith even made his own attempted replacement or out-doing of the Bible, called “The Book of Mormon”, and stupidly included the words “rights” and “liberty”, repeatedly, and ended up sounding like a poor imitator of various speeches made by the “founding fathers”. The Book of Mormon ended up being littered with punctuation and grammar errors and major plagiarism from the Bible that he attempted to out-do. Joseph Smith also tried copying it’s literary style, and failed often due to his ignorance of Old English grammar. He even copied the italics in the King James Bible into the Book of Mormon, making it even more obvious that he wasn’t divinely inspired, but a forgetful and lazy idiot, and whose fatigue (caused by his making his long rambling work while sinning and desiring to sin), hindered him. And so again was fulfilled these verses: “Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4) and “For the wisdom of this world is nonsense in God’s sight. For it is written, ‘He catches the wise with their own trickery’.”

As I’ve taught before, there is no conflict between “free will” and God destining everything he made. The confusion is over what “will” means and what it is, something which opinionators and God-haters keep misdefining. A will doesn’t mean “a thing which is free and makes choices freely without influence”, which is where the illogical term “free will” comes from. And if the will is free, then “free will” is a redundant phrase. But the will is a part of the human mind that makes choices, but choices which are influenced, and choices which aren’t always able to be fulfilled, and choices which God does not have to respect or love, if they are against what he says is good. And God can influence people perfectly, and doesn’t need to do so directly in all instances, for him to cause to happen what he wants to. He can get what he wants indirectly, in various ways. He designed the universe and gave it the direction he wanted, knowing what would happen, and what would happen when he permitted things and commanded things and directly intervened. So, he has pre-destined everything, and there is no getting around that. No scheme will change that, and no teaching will make it less true; God is sovereign, and his will never fails, and we are under his influence, in this universe, which belongs to him, not us.

Update: 5/20/2011, 11:20

George Noory has yet another Christian on named Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh, who is also teaching the rapture is a non-judgment day event, who at 8:44 AM I just learned was most likely saved (I’ve been talking to her). She taught that the rapture happens after the tribulation as far as I can remember from the show, but I’m not sure. I’m trying to find out now.

Additional Information:

The Last Days Explained

The Extreme Hypocrisy of the Mormons: Are All Non-Mormon Churches False or Not?

Two days ago, after having talked again with some Mormon missionaries for two days in a row, I again started studying the Biblical calendar of history. I came across some calendar pages by John Pratt. His name was familiar to me, and while reading the first page I came to, written by him, noticed he made an odd comment, something about something or other maybe being a sign or evidence of the Aaronic priesthood, even though I knew there was no such thing, and then saw that he was, as I suspected, a non-upfront Mormon as I looked deeper into his website. He doesn’t mention in his self-biography that he is a Mormon. I noticed a hypocritical statement he made, which was that Martin Luther was a prophet. This is in contradiction to what the founder of Mormonism taught, which was that no church was true during his time (which would include the Lutheran church that Martin Luther founded). Ironically, that same day, one of the missionaries I mentioned implied that “Martin Luther King” was a Mormon prophet, but when I asked repeatedly about him, they directly denied that he was one, and then the one who called him Martin Luther King corrected himself, saying, “actually, I think it’s Martin Luther”. More ironic was that both of the missionaries were black, but not so ironic perhaps if they had often thought about both Luthers as being saviors of some sort (one of blacks, and in a way all races, and the other who lead people away from Catholicism, however the Bible says that going from one false religion to another false one, which Arminian-type and baptism-for-salvation-requiring type Lutherism is, just increases their damnation, and therefore, their eternal punishment.)

Also, yesterday, I was in an intermediate lesson type class in a Mormon “church”, taught by a blonde woman. They apparently, but not surprising to me, have no advanced classes, as they are always going over the same basic things, which reminds me of how the Bible talks about non-Christians as always learning (about religious truths) but never able to come to the truth, as in never understanding the parts that matter most or believing them, at least believing them to the point where you change your ways in order to be pleasing to God. She was teaching about the persecution Jeremiah experienced, and trying to match it to various parts of the Book of Mormon (a supposed holy book that Joseph Smith came up with from God, which is full of spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in the original, and has many contradictions). She brought up how king Zedekiah was a hypocrite for asking Jeremiah to bless Israel despite him putting him in a horrible prison, and that he was also a weak person, as in he gave in to the will of the anti-Christians rather then to God’s. And she was somewhat emphatic about how hypocritical and weak Zedekiah was for what he did. She also talked about how Jeremiah had a “burning” feeling in him and a “calling” to the point where he couldn’t keep God’s word back (the Mormons are obsessed with feelings because their founder Joseph Smith had no evidence for his new teachings and taught them to rely on their heart instead of reason and evidence). And one of the listeners, an elderly woman who was a genealogist in that church, spoke up and said that Wycliffe also had a burning within him and a calling to speak his beliefs about God. I am not against feelings, as without them there would be no love for goodness or others and no anger at what is wrong or those who do wrong, nor am I against a so called burning feeling to do what is right or when inspired and so on, and I am not against a genuine calling. But what I am against is the hypocrisy of the Mormons, which is a hypocrisy equal to or greater than that of Zedekiah and those who knew that Jeremiah was a prophet, and what God’s word and will was: Joseph Smith claimed that one of the first things he heard in his first supernatural encounter, supposedly with Jesus himself, was that “no church is true”, meaning all the churches were misleading people about how to get eternal peace and were instead leading people to an eternity of extreme pain and sorrow in Hell. Wycliffe was not apart of the Mormon church, but was a Christian who believed in destiny, unlike Joseph Smith, who came up with, out of contempt for God, a nonsensical version of “free will”. He came up with it out of his hatred of thinking that God was truly the leader of his life, despising God’s control. How hypocritical for the many Mormons, at least 20, in that room, who did not speak out against the genealogist. And as evidence of the deeply warped view that Mormons have thanks to Joseph Smith, was that in the basic class I was in the same day before that more advanced one, was when a sloppy-teaching, clearly newbie “missionary” taught Satan’s plan was to take everyone’s free will away and make us like robots and computers because he wanted to force his plan, but he didn’t bother to say what Satan’s plan was and why God’s plan, despite using obvious force, was not in the same way trying to make us robots and computers.

So for those of you who wonder why I bring up free will now and then and go extensively into it, it’s not because I’m obsessed with it, but because others are in a sick way and are confused about it and spread that confusion to the hurt of others.

It made me very sorrowful to see adorable children in that church, and beautiful parents, some of whom were clearly deceived into thinking they really did have the true gospel, who really did think that they were sitting with Christ, who had concern for their family, but in a shallow way, a concern that was complacent, because it didn’t take the threat of Hell seriously enough to make sure their family was on God’s path to peace, but only seriously enough to make sure it was following the path of man’s tradition and will.

11/17/2010:

Two missionaries came over to my place again just as the sun was going down, and one had been switched out. They seemed to be trying to bring their lessons to a close and get me to convert. And the new one emphasized how he knew at the close of their teachings that his beliefs were right (and therefore so should I, more emotionalism). During their teaching I tried to get them to say what I thought would be typical of them, which was that God won’t send many people to Hell (the missionary that didn’t switch out apparently agreed since before the other was switched out, said that, and he didn’t correct him), and that if God tries to force anyone to do anything it’s a violation of their free will and that if you have eternal life you’ll sin all you like. They disappointed me, and I think part of it was my own fault for leading them to clarity, and praying that they would be lead to truth more than ever. I should have been happy about it, and I was a little, but I was hoping things would be simple and the same with no complications. I did get them to admit that they believe that God can’t force anyone to do anything, but as I kept pressing, the light black one later changed his doctrine and said that sometimes God does intervene, which although is still a ridiculous thing to say, being that God always intervenes through angels, and with Jesus made a massive intervention. They also showed confusion about how if our will’s are completely random, how it is possible to predict what will happen in the future, though I suppose it is possible that if it were possible for them to be completely random, that God could still somehow see outside of this dimension and see the future. I tried to get them to admit that they would think God cruel for sending many people to Hell, but I lead them in such a way that when I asked them if they would think of God as cruel for sending most of the world to Hell, they both agreed that he wouldn’t be, and wouldn’t turn against him, because it is the choice of whoever goes to Hell to go there. There is a problem with that though: notice that their obsession with free will being free is coloring everything they say? And so much so that that response is illogical: Not everyone chooses to go to Hell, so what about those who go to Hell against their will? Clearly God will force them to go there, even the Book of Mormon implies it when it says he will “thrust” them into Hell (and in contradiction to that that Satan will speedily drag them there, and in another place says he will carefully do so). But since they are so fixated on avoiding saying that God forces anyone to do anything, even rescuing children from those who want to abuse and murder them, they, instead of saying, “It’s God’s right to punish those who disobey him and send them out of his presence”, turn it into a pride issue and give themselves the credit for going to Hell. It is the same way with them with their going to their version of Heaven and getting their version of eternal life: they claim that they must obey God’s laws to get to Heaven and have eternal life, that they must do something, that they, “have to do their part.” Some admit, even with tears, and the first time I went to one of their churches, that they don’t deserve what is good, that they fail to obey Christ all the time, and that Jesus died for all their sins, but still, they want to take some credit for saving themselves, to be equal with the Savior, to have their will equal with his. I also suggested that they believe that God can’t tamper with our will and that it’s because ours is equal with his, and when I said that, neither of the missionaries denied it.

One Mormon woman I met five years ago on the infamous anti-religious Nexopia profile site, named Bree, a Canadian, who herself was infamous for her stubborn belief in Mormonism (but because of her beauty and pandering and her drawing new members no doubt, they moderators tolerated her and defended her and even made her a moderator to attack me in new ways), was so hateful of the belief that God would send most of the world to Hell, that she attempted to incite others to burn my house down. When I told another pair of Mormon missionaries about her, the bolder one of the two exclaimed that she wasn’t a Mormon then, in other words: “Mormon’s don’t sin”, which is obviously a lie, but he was so prideful and blind, he couldn’t see how crazy it was for him to say such a thing.

When I moved on to the claim of a Mormon missionary I met five years ago, that if you get eternal life now that you will sin all you want (but didn’t say to the ones I was talking to at the moment that he was the one who made the claim, they expressed that having it now wouldn’t necessarily make you sin all you wanted to, and the dark-skinned one smiled about it, as he thought it was a funny thought, but instead of going completely against that suggestion, said that it was important to get eternal life once we went to Heaven, so that we wouldn’t sin anymore and face the possibility of never getting eternal life. That made no sense, but he said that because I had brought up earlier an issue I had with a statement one of their missionary teachers made in a classroom I was in, which was that he said that Satan doesn’t, mess with “the people downtown” but “with church-members” with people who are trying to obey God’s laws. The Bible does not teach that at all but that Satan harasses everyone, and that he flees those who resist him. When I brought up the fleeing Satan verse I noticed they didn’t recognize it till I kept repeating it to them in various ways, and then illogically the dark-skinned missionary used it as a reason to accept that we might not get eternal life here, and therefore should try to get it in their Celestial Kingdom. There was also something strange about that response in that he was suggesting that it was possible to get eternal life now, and yet that is against Mormon doctrine. Now that I think about it I think he said that because he probably had met some Christians who told him that eternal life could be obtained now, and thought it might be possible if they showed him evidence from the Bible for it.

About that teacher who made the “downtown” comment, I told them that not all teachers give perfect sermons apparently, and they agreed, since they realized he was wrong to say that Satan doesn’t attack non-church members.

I had also told them about a false and backslidden Christian woman who told me the opposite of that teacher, which was that Satan doesn’t attack Christians because he knows they are going to Heaven (which was bizarre for her to say since she didn’t believe in predestination, and got angry when I showed her evidence for it, and that God controls our hearts, or at least manipulates them, and so believed that once you are saved you are always saved, which is the opposite of what the many people who do believe in predestination believe, because they logically understand that if someone isn’t predestined, that it is not certain if they will stay saved.) But the dark-skinned one and the light skin one said that she wasn’t completely wrong, because the more obedient we are to God, the less Satan is likely to attack us (which is opposite of what their church-based teacher said), and they only told me that after I brought it up, and the fleeing Satan verse, which I now remember as, “resist the devil and he will flee from you”. It’s something almost exactly like that.

I also asked them why most people rejected God and chose not to obey him (as in after they became aware of him and his laws), hoping they would realize that without God’s direct intervention and influence that no one will turn to God, but instead they had no answer, and I suggested with a question, like, “could it be that man is more inclined to do evil?”, hoping they would realize that obvious fact and remember what the Bible said about man, but neither had a direct response, and seemed to avoid responding to it. Though I haven’t been direct with them, at least I’ve helped them to accept possibilities that are closer to the truth, as I had prayed for them.